Alhassanain(p) Network for Heritage and Islamic Thought

Chapter Four: The Arguments from Motion and Huduth

Premises of the Arguments from Motion and Hudūth

Due to lack of familiarity with the central elements of the demonstration(burhān) , which proceeds from the world’s contingency, the Judeo-Christian theologians have considered another set of arguments - such as the argument from motion(burhān al-haraka) , which has no relationship with the argument based on contingency - of the category of the demonstration of contingency and necessity.

The argument from motion has been used in the works of Plato and Socrates, and subsequently, it has been analyzed in the books of Islamic philosophers. The argument from hudūth has been advanced in major kalāmi works.

Motion(haraka) is an entity’s gradual transfer from potentiality(qūwwa) to actuality(fe‛liyya) . Transfer from potentiality to actuality requires an external causal efficacy, because actuality is an existential perfection(al-kamāl al-wujūdī) for the mobile entity(al-mutaharrek) ; and a mobile entity, which lacks an existential perfection, cannot come to possess it without an external cause. Therefore, in order to attain actuality, everything that is marked with motion is in need of an agency other than itself. If the agency that is giving motion, that is, the mover(muharrek) , to the mobile is something that itself is characterized by being in motion, then it will need an external causal efficacy as well. And since it has been proved that infinite causal regress(tasalsul) is impossible, the series of efficient causes ends at an agency, which is not itself in motion and gives motion to others.

The proponents of the argument from hudūth argue that if something is hādith, it requires an external efficient cause. They consider hudūth as the criterion of need for an external causal efficacy. They maintain that every hādith, that is, everything that has a temporal origin, must come into existence through an external cause, and since regressive(tasalsul) and circular causality(daur) are impossible, therefore, the succession of hādith entities concludes at a non-hādith entity.

The argument from hudūth revolves around the notion that hudūth is a sufficient reason for an effect’s “causedness”(ma‛lūliyya) or need(ehtiyāj) to external causal efficacy. That is, the mutakellimūn not only assert that everything that is hādith and has a temporal origin is an effect, since this assertion is a matter of consensus by all, rather they also contend that everything, which is an effect(ma‛lūl) is hādith and that no effect can be eternal(azalī) .

Evaluation of the Argument from Causality

Along the other arguments for the existence of the Deity, which St. Thomas Aquinas mentions in his Summa Theologica, he articulates an independent argument, which proceeds from the principle of causation and the impossibility of causal regress.[115] However, as indicated earlier, the principle of causation is relied upon in every argument that is meant to prove God’s existence, and without presupposing its truth, no argument can yield any conclusion, because if the principle of causation is doubted, the gateway of rationality, namely the certainty of attaining a conclusion from certain premises, is closed.

Therefore, regardless of concepts such as contingency, hudūth, and motion, which provide the grounds whereby causation is used; causation is not an independent philosophical argument. In addition to the reliance of every argument on the principle of causation, most of the named arguments further depend on another general rule of causality, which is the impossibility of regressive and circular causation. In certain instances in Islamic philosophy that causation has been the axis of argumentation, it is either in view of the fact that the notions of contingency of impoverishment(al-imkān al-faqrī) and “causedness” apply to an entity from the same sense, or it is in consideration to the essential independence or absoluteness of the Necessary. Such arguments are, in fact, reducible to the demonstration of contingency of impoverishment(burhān al-imkān al-faqrī) , which will be discussed later.

Limitations of the Arguments from Motion and Hudūth

The arguments from motion and hudūth do not have the cogency of the demonstration of contingency and necessity. First, because these two arguments rely on the impossibility of regressive and circular causation, whereas the demonstration of contingency and necessity, as we articulated, is above such reliance. Second, they do not prove the Almighty Necessary, and in order to do so, they have to be adduced by the demonstration of contingency and necessity.

After the dismissal of causal regress, the argument from motion entails the existence of a non-moving mover. Likewise, the argument from hudūth indicates an eternal creator. Nevertheless, neither of the two indicates whether the non-moving mover or the eternal creator has necessity of existence.

The non-moving mover, as proved in Peripatetic philosophy, or the eternal creator, as discussed in kalāmi books, can be a body(jism) or a physical form(al-sūra al-jismiyya) , since motion according to Peripatetic philosophy, and hudūth according to the mutakellimūn are found in certain accidents(‛awāridh) of physical entities. Therefore, the arguments from motion and hudūth prove the need for a mover or creator in accordance with these accidents.

Hudūth is in the context of change, and if change is restricted to some accidents of the physique, a creator is needed only with respect to those accidents. For this reason, rational analysis of the celebrated argument of the mutakellimūn,

The world is changing.

Everything is changing is hādith.

Therefore, the world is hādith.

would indicate, in effect, that the argument should run as follows:

The world’s accidents are changing.

Anything the accidents of which are changing, is hādith in its accidents.

Therefore, the world is hādith in its accidents.

Thus, the second syllogism of the mutakellimūn,

The world is hādith.

Every hādith has a creator.

Therefore, the world has a creator.

would indicate that since the essence of the physical world is not subject to change and hudūth, it does not require a creator.

The world is hādith in its accidents.

Anything that is hādith in its accidents has a creator for its accidents.

Therefore, the world has a creator for its accidents.

Thus, the proponents of the arguments from motion and hudūth cannot respond to the paradox of eternity of matter or physical form. Given the physical body, which is made up of form and matter, undergoes change in things that are outside its essence, such as accidents and kind forms(al-suwwar al-naw‛iyya) , it follows that it only needs a creator or mover with regard to them.

Kind forms can change infinitely one after another by generation and corruption(al-kaun wa al-fasād) ; and accidents, which according to the mutakellimūn are changing, can be in motion in a successive regress(al-tasalsul al-ta‛āqubī) [116] . In both instances, motion and hudūth are outside the essence of body(jism) , and therefore, the body’s need to a mover or creator is proportionate to the area of its need.

To extend hudūth from accidents and kind forms to the essence of physiques, the mutakellimūn argue that anything that bears a hādith accident is hādith. However, they have failed to notice that if an entity bears a hādith accident, it is only hādith with respect to that accident. And if hudūth is ascribed to the essence of the physique, such an ascription is figurative.

The need of a creator or mover can be proved for matter and kind forms only from the position of substantial motion(al-haraka al-jawhariyya) , where change and hudūth are extended from accidents and kind forms to the essence of physiques.

Ibn Sīnā argues that if everything that bears a hādith is hādith, as asserted by the mutakellimūn, then God, the Exalted, must be hādith as well. That is because on the one hand, the mutakellimūn believe that the world is hādith - that is, there was God and nothing else and then He desired and began creating the world - and on the other, they maintain that the Divine will is a practical attribute, and therefore, like the world, it is hādith. From this perspective, God bears hādith accidents, since before creating the world, He was not the Purposer(al-Murid) , and then He willed to create the world. Though the hādith will is not an Essential attribute, since they maintain that it is established by the Divine Essence and the Essence is its recipient(mahal) , the will is born by the Essence. According to their principle that everything that bears a hādith is hādith, the Divine Essence must be hādith, as it bears a hādith phenomenon. Should the mutakellimūn recourse to deny a mutual necessity between hudūth of the Essence and hudūth of its will, their argument for the hudūth of the physical world will fall apart, as they will lose their rational grounds for tracing the hudūth of the world to its Creator.

Therefore, the principle “Something which bears a hādith is hādith” fails to lead to the hudūth of the essence of the physical world.

Hudūth of the physique’s essence can only be established through substantial motion(al-haraka al-jawhariyya) . Since according to substantial motion, motion, and hudūth are extended from accidents and kind forms to the essence of the physique.

With the establishment of substantial motion, Sadr al-Muta’allihīn al-Shirāzī ascribes motion and hudūth to the essence of the natural world. From this vantage point, the natural world is characterized by a universal and continuous hudūth; and thus, motion and hudūth are reflected in the essence, as well as the accidents, of natural entities; and this yields to the existence of a metaphysical Mover and Creator.

Expanding the grounds these arguments proceed from, though substantial motion enhances the tenability of the arguments from motion and hudūth, it still does not alleviate the main defect of these arguments on the score of their incapacity to indicate the necessity of existence of the First Mover or the Creator. Substantial motion emancipates these arguments from the narrow boundaries of the natural world and elevates them to incorporeal and metaphysical realities; although an incorporeal origin - that bestows existence on the natural entities or gives them motion - is definitely an incorporeal and eternal entity, yet in the mean time, it has not been proved that is not contingent. Therefore, in order to indicate such mover or the creator’s necessity of existence, one will have to resort to further arguments such as the demonstration of contingency and necessity.

Therefore, the arguments form motion and hudūth, in addition to the fact that their conclusiveness is indebted to inclusion of the impossibility of regressive and circular causality in their articulations, are associated with having two additional defects. Substantial motion removes the first defect, but its major defect still cannot be abolished without assistance from the demonstration of contingency and necessity.

Evaluation of Criticisms of the Arguments from Motion and Hudūth

The arguments from motion and hudūth have been subject to criticisms that either pertain to both arguments, or are exclusively directed at one of the two. Many of these criticisms are due to unfamiliarity with the central notions these arguments revolve around. For instance, owing to misunderstanding of the difference between receptive(al-‛illa al-qābiliyya) and supplementary causes(al-‛illa al-mu‛idda) and the efficient cause(al-‛illa al-fā‛iliyya) , some critics have questioned the impossibility of regressive causation; and for the same reasons, some writers have considered it possible that an inferior and weak cause produce a higher and superior effect.

Another criticism that stems from inattentiveness to the meanings of motion and inaction/rest(sukūn) and overlooks the existentiality of motion and non-existentiality of inaction, states that the argument from motion does not treat motion and inaction/rest on equal merits and only considers motion as dependent and needful of a cause.

The reason that the mutakellimūn have employed the argument from hudūth is that they think if Divine grace were eternal, then it will invite two contradictions. First, God would be a constrained cause(al-fā‛il al-mūjab) [117] , whilst His autonomy(ikhtiyār) is not deniable. Second, Divine grace will not need an origin. These false presumptions, however, are due to the mutakellimūn‘s lack of understanding of why an effect needs a cause, and what do power and autonomy mean.

Mutakellimūn hold that an autonomous cause is an agency that has temporal precedence over its effect. In other words, the effect of an autonomous cause does not exist in the past, and after the cause weighs the different options before him, he decides that the effect should exist. They maintain that a constrained cause, like fire that produces heat, is an agency that has no temporal separation from its effect. An autonomous cause in the view of philosophers and philosophy-oriented mutakellimūn is an agency, which acts if he desires to act and does not act if he does not desire to. From this position, should an agency, because of his eternal knowledge and wisdom, desire the perpetual and eternal performance of an action, this will not violate his autonomy and would not mean that he is constrained.

Since hudūth is not the reason, which determines why an effect is needful of its cause, the eternity of grace, contrary to the mutakellimūn‘s assumption, does not amount to the effect’s independence and lack of need to its cause. For instance, the everlastingness of human beings in the hereafter, which is a matter of consensus among many faiths, does not imply their lack of need to their existential cause.

Since hudūth is an attribute of existence, in rational analysis its degree is posterior to existence. Moreover, rational analysis indicates that existence is after creation and creation after necessitation(ijāb) and necessitation after needfulness. In the light of this, should hudūth be the reason of needfulness and dependence of an effect on its cause, it must exist a few degrees antecedent to itself. Although this indirect circularity(daur) is not as obviously void as direct circularity, the corruption of its corollaries is greater than in direct circularity. This is because supposing that hudūth is the reason for need, after an effect comes into existence it is not marked by hudūth, which follows that the reason for its need to a cause does not exist. It further follows that an entity that has become hādith has no need to its cause in order to continue to exist.

From the Peripatetic and Illuminationist(Ishrāqiyyūn) philosophers’ perspective, the reason and criterion of an effect’s need to its cause is its contingency(imkān) ; and since contingency never separates from the essence of the effect, its need to its cause is inseparable from it. The eternity and everlastingness of an effect does not imply that it is not needy and dependent on its efficient cause; rather, an effect’s eternity and everlastingness indicates the continuity and everlastingness of its need to its cause.

Due to these deficiencies of the arguments from motion and hudūth, the Peripatetic and Illuminationist philosophers have not sufficed on them and have established the demonstration of contingency and necessity(burhān al-imkān wa al-wujūb) , which enjoys an exceeding strength and tenability.

Chapter Five: The Demonstration of Contingency of Impoverishment

Transition from Quidditative Contingency to Contingency of Impoverishment

A closer examination of quidditative contingency(al-imkān al-māhūwī) guides the course of inquiry to a new sort of contingency, namely the contingency of impoverishment(al-imkān al-faqrī) . The perception of this sort of contingency entails the construction of a superior argument for the existence of the Necessary.

The entertainment of a quiddity’s equidistance towards existence and nonexistence, which is an immediate inference from its quality of lack of necessitation with respect to existence and nonexistence, brings forth quidditative contingency. Clearly, in order to exist, such a finite entity requires an external causal efficacy. The external agency that endows it with existence and extricates it from the position of equidistance is its existential cause. In other words, quiddity finds existence with the blessings of creation from its existential cause.

Therefore, should it be asked, “How does quiddity lose its equidistance?” the response is, “By the existence it receives from its efficient cause.” However, the question can be transferred from quiddity to existence, stating, how did an existence, which is not self-subsistent, come to be and what is the reason of its need for its efficient cause. Before responding to this question, it must be borne in mind that such an existence cannot be equidistant towards existence and nonexistence, since according to the law of identity, everything is necessarily itself. Therefore, existence is necessarily existence, and is impossible to be nonexistence. Hence, the existence of contingents does not have the attribute of quidditative contingency, namely, equidistance towards existence and nonexistence. On the other hand, because of their finitude, contingents(al-mumkināt) lack eternal necessity(al-dharūra al-azaliyya) , and their existence is restricted to specific conditions that are present only in certain levels of the gradational reality of existence(al-haqīqa al-mushakkika lil-wujūd) .[118]

The fact that contingents(mumkināt) are finite and conditional means they are not absolute and have a need and dependence, which is satisfied only in specific conditions. Unlike evenness with respect to four, such need and dependence is not an attribute or accident that would be additional to the finite existence, since if it were additional, the finite existence, which is the contingent’s very reality, would be devoid of need in virtue of its essence. Because reality always conforms to one of the two sides of contradiction, the absence of need in the finite existence, translates to its complement(naqīdh) , namely, its lack of need and independence, which contradicts the fact that the finite and conditional existence is needful and contingent.

Quiddity is a mental phenomenon the essence of which and essential parts thereof are entertained by the mind, and any other thing, even if it is on one of the two sides of contradiction, is outside its boundaries. For instance, existence and nonexistence are on the two sides of contradiction, yet the concept of human being does not include any of the two. However, existence is not a mental phenomenon; it is the very reality and factuality of things; and the external world is never vacant of the two sides of contradiction. For this reason, the need and dependence, which is proved for contingents, is their very existence, not their necessary accident(lāzim) .

Although quidditative need and contingency is an essential property(al-‛aradh al-dhātī) of the quiddity’s essence, it is, outside its essence and essential parts. That is, contingency is not a genus or differentia for quiddities. The needfulness that is proved for finite things is their external existence. This sort of needfulness proves another type of contingency, which is not additional to the existence of the effect. Like its proportionate needfulness, such contingency is the very reality and existence of the contingent and needful beings, and is called the contingency of impoverishment(al-imkān al-faqrī) .

Contingency of impoverishment is the very needfulness and destitution that brims the effect’s existence; and when the existence of the effect is perceived, it is nothing but existence. When this premise is added to the axiom that existence is necessarily existence, it follows that contingency of impoverishment, contrary to quidditative contingency, does not require the negation of necessities of existence and nonexistence, and in effect, is based on the very necessity of existence.

Thus, a deeper analysis of quiddity and quidditative contingency proves an existence and necessity that are sheer needfulness, dependence, and the very penury to causal efficacy. Its contrast with the assertion that there is an essence that bears need as its accident, and therefore, need is posterior to it, need not explanation.

In the rational analysis of external realities, first we discern their quiddity and then their existence and reality. Then through the assessment of quiddity with existence, we discern the quiddity’s needfulness and contingency and discover it is characterized by need and contingency. However, when we observe the existence under the auspices of which the quiddity has found reality, from that existence’s finitude and conditionality we discern a needfulness and contingency, which are not additional to the essence of the needful and contingent existence, and rather are its very reality. For this reason, this type of contingency, which is sheer impoverishment and needfulness, is called contingency of impoverishment(al-imkān al-faqrī) .

The principality of existence(asāla al-wujūd) and respectivality of quiddity(e‛tebāriyya al-māhiyya) is the principle, which facilitates the transition from quiddity and quidditative contingency to existence and contingency of impoverishment. This is because from the position of principality of existence quiddity does not have the capacity to be subject to creation(ja‛l) , emanation(ifādha) , causation(‛illiyya) , and so forth; and is not realized except under the auspices of existence. Existence, nonexistence, independence, impoverishment, and the like, are not its essence or essential parts. Rather, needfulness and impoverishment pertain to the existence from the limitations(hudūd) of which the quiddity is abstracted. This impoverished existence is needful by virtue of its essence and does not require a reason or cause external to itself for its needfulness. However, in the case of quiddity, just as its essence is devoid of existence and it is only under the auspices of existence that it finds an auxiliary manifestation(al-burūz al-taba‛ī) , likewise, it is vacant of impoverishment and independence. The attribution of impoverishment or independence to quiddity is through their literal attribution to the existence, which realizes the quiddity. Therefore, what was stated regarding the reason of a quiddity’s need for a cause does not have total accuracy and is open to criticism.

Peripatetic philosophers believe that in order to exist, a quiddity is in need of an external causal efficacy. They further assert that this need is due to the quiddity’s contingency. This view, however, is subject to the criticism that was also forwarded against the postulation of the mutakellimūn who maintain that hudūth is the reason for an effect’s need for its cause. In rational analysis, as explained earlier, hudūth, as an attribute of the effect’s existence, is posterior(muta’akhir) to the effect’s need for its cause by several degrees. Similarly, from the perspective of principality of existence and as a result of antecedence of existence over quiddity, quidditative contingency - which is a corollary of quiddity and posterior to it - is posterior to existence; and because existence follows creation, and creation is after necessitation, and necessitation follows needfulness, quidditative contingency is posterior to needfulness by several degrees. Should the posterior contingency be the cause of needfulness, it will be posterior to itself and antecedent to itself by several degrees. Thus, in the view of principality of existence, though quidditative contingency, similar to hudūth, can indicate the effect’s need for a cause, it cannot be the reason and criterion of the effect’s need for the cause.[119]

Contingency of Impoverishment and the Essential Independence of the Necessary

With the elucidation of contingency of impoverishment, it becomes evident that existence, creation, necessity, necessitation, and needfulness are not different things, which mutually require each other. Rather, the existence of the effect is the single entity, which is the very impoverishment and need, the very emanation, creation, and necessitation. Since finite existence is impoverishment, and its entire reality is nothing but relation and dependence on the “other,” its necessity is also by virtue of the other. For such a thing, it is inconceivable to have an essence vacant of destitution and contingency, so in addition to contingency of impoverishment it may be characterized by the quality of quidditative contingency.

The prevalence of impoverishment in the bounds of beings, which are conjoined with quiddities - or to be more specific, beings the limitations of which narrate their quiddities - negates every kind of independence from them and illustrates their realities as prepositional notions(al-ma‛ānī al-harfiyya) , which are nothing but relation and contingence to the other.

A prepositional notion is a notion that by virtue of itself is devoid of any meaning. If any meaning can be discerned from a prepositional notion, it is under the auspices of dependence and relation to the other, and from the other that the preposition has dependence upon. The other that bestows a preposition with meaning must be a nounal meaning(al-ma‛na al-ismī) .

The analysis of existence of quiddities, that is, the elucidation of contingency of impoverishment, speedily paves the way for the foundation of a demonstration, which has a higher tenability, more brevity, and a broader range of usage than all of the previous arguments have. This is because the reality of a finite existence - that is, the existence, which is devoid of any independence and is sheer relation and dependence on the other, and is rather something the reality of which is nothing but relation and contingence to the other - cannot exist without the other side of such relation and dependence. Certainly, the other side of the relation and dependence, that is, the agency that furnishes the needful existence of contingents, cannot be another impoverished being, since with respect to any other finite existence that may be suggested for this causal efficiency, it is also true that it does not have anything from itself and there is no perceivable essence or self for it which would satisfy the first contingent’s need.

From this perspective, all contingent beings are signs of a reality, which is exalted from destitution and need and has independence. Although at a cursory glance a contingent may seem to be the cause of another contingent, however, even this mediation indicates the causality of an independent source that has manifested in this sign. Because all aspects of an entity, which is sheer need and contingence, are the need and contingence that evoke the other, and what it reflects is similar to a light that from a mirror.

A light that appears in a mirror can be traced to a luminary source, which has manifested in it, without requiring invalidation of regress. If another mirror is a mediate in the manifestation of the light therein, it can only reflect the light of the luminary agency; and it cannot be suggested it has a light of its own which it gives to the next mirror.

Signs(‛alamāt) are of two kinds: conventional signs(al-‛alamāt al-e‛tebāriyya) and factual signs(al-‛alamāt al-haqīqiyya) . The former is like words, scripts, traffic signals, national flags of various countries, and so forth. Factual signs are like the image of a person who is in front of a mirror. Factual signs are further divided into three kinds:

· Finite Signs: Like indication of smoke respecting fire, or prairie or wetland respecting water. The indication of such signs does not depend on the conventions of a specific group of people, nonetheless, as the smoke or prairie changes, their “signness” and indication about fire and water changes as well.

· Permanent Signs: This kind of sign pertains to instances in which indication is not restricted to a particular time, and like evenness of four, is always with reality that is marked with the sign.

· Essential Signs: In this case, being the sign of a reality, which is indicated by the sign, is not a necessary property of the sign’s essence; rather it is its very essence and reality. In the previous kind, indication is a necessary property of the essence of the sign, and by virtue of its essence, it does not bear any indication with respect to the reality, which it is reflecting. However, in this kind, the sign’s entire reality is the reflection of the entity, which it is representing.

An image, which appears in a mirror is a mirror by virtue of its essence. According to simple mindsets, glass and other physical parts constitute the mirror; however, in the ‛irfān(Gnosticism) of the wayfarer to the unseen, mirror is nothing but the illustrated visage. The visage, which is illustrated in a mirror is other than the glass, frame, their length, width, depth, light, color, angle, and the like. Rather, it is the very narration, indication, and relation, which it renders with respect to the real image.

Contingency of impoverishment elucidates the “mirror-like” realities of beings, which manifest and appear in the image of various quiddities. This method of analysis of “causedness”(ma‛lūliyya) exhibits the world as perceived by ‛irfān: as the various Divine splendors, which bring about the different things and ages and eras. This fashion of perception is inspired by the Qur’ānic teachings, which identify the heavens and the earth and whatever is within them as a beggar and needful and recognize God as a reality that every degree of existence is a splendor of His infinite magnificence.“Beseech Him all those in the heavens and the earth; everyday He is in a new splendorous manifestation.”[ 120]

In the parlance of Qur’ānic verses, various existential splendors are the diverse facets and dimensions of the visage of the Lord(Wajhullah) of Glory and Grace. “Hallowed is the name of thy Lord, the Lord of Glory and Grace.”[121] Wajhullah is the infinite Divine manifestation, which has presence in every entity; “He is with you wherever you be”[122] ; and is evident in every facet, “Therefore, wherever you turn you find the face of God.”[123]

Rational analysis illustrates the world like a mirror in which different beings appear as various splendors of God. Although someone, who is inattentive to its “mirror-like” reality and its figurative existence, perceives it independent; nevertheless, when the mirror is broken and reality unfolds, the Divine visage of every entity manifests. Then when it is asked, “Whose is the kingdom today?”[124] the response, which echoes in reality of every age and time, is heard, “God’s, the One, the Subduer.”[125]

God, the One, the Subduer, is that very needless reality Who satisfies and dispenses with the perpetual supplication of the needful. His act of satisfying the needs is not in a fashion, which would eliminate the need and the begging of the impoverished, because need and dependence are present in the response that is received from Him, and needfulness does not vacate any dimension of contingents. For this reason, the late Āghā Ali Hakīm, in Badā’i‛ al-Hikam, points out that the opposition(taqābul) of need of contingents to the independence of the Necessary is an opposition of affirmation and negation(al-salb wa al-eijāb) and not an opposition of privation and possession(al-‛adam wa al-malaka) .[126]

In the opposition of privation and possession, the nonexistent is devoid of the being and reality of the opposite side, nonetheless, its individual, class, kind, or genus, can have the opposite side. However, the finite existence is an impoverished reality; and this impoverishment is such that the more the benedictions from the Necessary, the more desperate the impoverishment. It follows that in no condition can the contingent attain the capacity to have independence, an attribute exclusive to the Necessary.

In other words, God is independent and everything except Him is needful, and the opposition between His independence and this need is not privation and possession, since by consideration of individual, class, kind, or genus, no finite existence can have necessary or absolute independence. Therefore, the affirmation of the opposite side is impossible for the finite existences; and the opposition between the two is the opposition of affirmation and negation, not the opposition of privation and possession.

The presence of impoverishment in every dimension of contingents entails that the indication and narration they have with regard to the All-Sufficient and Independent Essence, and also the human being’s cognition and awareness with respect to Him, are splendors and manifestations of that very Essence. This is the meaning of the exalted statement, “The One who proves His essence by His essence.”[127]

Unique Qualities of the Demonstration of Contingency of Impoverishment

The demonstration of contingency of impoverishment, by the version expounded in this book, in addition to its purity from the shortcomings of the previous arguments, is unique by having a number of distinctive features. This is so because the sole applicability of the arguments, which proceed from motion and hudūth, even after their adduction with substantial motion, is in the corporeal world; and the only conclusion they lead to is an incorporeal origin for the physical world. The argument from design - even if the tenability of its conclusiveness is left unchallenged - is beyond this reproach, since design or orderliness(nadhm) is not exclusive to the physical and mobile entities and is also perceivable among incorporeal beings; nevertheless, the argument is based on a concatenated totality, which functions towards a common objective. On the contrary, the demonstration of contingency of impoverishment can be substantiated on the basis of corporeal as well as incorporeal entities; and its cogency does not require a totality of things and can easily proceed from the existence of one finite being. In addition to this, the objective of the demonstration of contingency of impoverishment is not to prove a mover, a muhdith, or a cosmic designer, attributes shared by the Necessary and other subjects; rather, it is set to prove a necessary origin.

The demonstration of contingency of impoverishment surpasses the demonstration of contingency and necessity in not having some of the latter’s deficiencies. Its lack of need to the impossibility of circular and regressive causality is more evident than that of the latter demonstration. With the construction of the demonstration of contingency of impoverishment, first, the Necessary is proved, and then the finitude of the series of mediates, which exhibit the absolute causality of the Necessary is illustrated.

The demonstration of contingency and necessity - however, without some of its meticulous rational premises and corollaries - found its way through the works of Peripatetic philosophers into scholastic philosophy and then through inaccurate translations, entered the academia, which receive their philosophical learning through such channels; nevertheless, the demonstration of contingency of impoverishment, which is the result of cognitive profundities of the Imamite theosophers and has been in the curriculum of Shiite philosophical learning for the last four centuries, retains its novelty and bloom in its original abode. The distraught mentality of western philosophizers and philosophy historians - who under sway of sensationalism have abandoned rationality and have been subdued by apparent and latent skepticism(shakkākiyya) - ever remains unfamiliar of this demonstration.